Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-05
COURT OF APPEALS.
SynaDyas g. aisi =s SO d r. ss-a
PreaCu Ter e,Es8s u tE3
U9u9s Of AppeElso Z
DscisE0rs Rendered IN Sem. OHses eset
Have LsrzC feen FeHding-Sew
Rulings.


State; appeal from Waller. Il was errcE
.o permit witness shultz TO testify as e
witness for TIE state, over defendants o.
jsctione, il having been SHOWN that said
witness 12d been convicted of & felony
which rad never been legally set aside
znd par3onsd. Il Tas error in the court
TO reject tna Judgment showing daien-
dants Conviction, Is going 70 offset his
Is & witness. Reversed AKA
Tam5ude3. WiliEo8, J.
james WCCdson vs.. the State; appeal
from Galveston. Conviction for perjury.
K was not error 10 permit the states wiz
ueas, RsUey, to testify that he WSS Justice
Ct the peace Of Harris county: ana IS
such, administered the oath up0C
which the f1lse swearing is preGicated,
This is an exception to the rule. The
official casggcter Of al alleged public ctl-
Ger neet not be proved bythe commission
or othec written evidence of the right ct |
such officer to SGT IS such, eEcept IN 81 |
ig6ae directly between the CficeE and the |
spubGc. Where & ststa's witness WEo |
asked bg defendants counsel: "Eava YoQ !
not been confined II the peaite1ti9ry iCr |
crime?' end On objection by the state |
WAS excused from Eus Wering. Held; Not
reversible cTEcr il not appearing Eor Wast
purpose the question Was gaked. Al
lirmed. Wilson, !.
Dan Vverb vs.. TIE State; appeal from
Upshur. 20 sustain & conviction fer tee
crime O. adultery IS is absolutely essential
that the evidence should show that ST thG
time Of the alleged a3Ulterous inter
course one Of The parties thereto
was lawfully D2rTied TO some
other Dera0a than the o2e with
whom the adultery IS Charged. In this
| case It wac proven tha5 defendant he'd q
! living vile with whom ne had Iived dur
| ing tho Tag, cut from whom re had sap
| aIated since the W&T. There is 70 eyl-
| denCa inst be ever married She woman.
nor that they lived together as married
! Der5o-s. The opinion Of Witnesses t21t
| s woman vas his wife cannot be sufficient
Itaprov2 tic important fact th&t hs ~hs
fe175Tried to another peTSCn. There being
| no. sufficient pro2i q the marriage the
! Judgment Of the court below c9nnOt
stand, Reversed and r5m2nded. Will
SOB, J.
Els Brown VS.. the State; appeal from
| Falls. C0uv;cior ioc perjury, Tor falsely
| sessifyirg IN 2 casa Of assault with intent
to murder. The Indictment charges that
Eap9enent sWora tbaJ enc williams was
holding bis gun 'fwith the m6ZZ'e down
IN the direction q Gass31Ey," tie as
ssu.teG pa1t7. Counsel yoT appellant c *
tends that Jhis language, il used by appel-
lanS, Gees rot sufficient Iy charge tie
crime q assault: With iutoE1 20 mgr3ar.
Held: This Was eufi2iant 10 charge ths
assault. Tn court old not eLr il p&TGllE-
ting the Introduction IL evidence G I'll IL
dictmeLt FOR perjury based upon ,h8 5oms
transaction, cut OF watch this pEcsec2-11-
grew, GgainsG dEi5nd&nE'5 witness MCoTe
NOS as to his competency but SO 20 his
IcredibiIifQ 81 Ritresg. No error de
handing reversal. Affirmed. White, Z. j
( Dave Lit5ledsId VI. the State; appeal
. from GcLzsIee. Conviction fCr perjury
Witnesses were introduced over dStaEd
) ants cbiectiCnS in tie court below Il
prove appellants declarations and state
renfs made baiore the gran0 jury on The
Investigation 81 the Carr case, snG sU1se
Quent 10 the tzisI IN said cae3 with refer
} eDCe 10 the Seasons and iEducemant
which actuatsd him to testify 90 lie did 0l
SID trial. HaId: This testimony W.!
legitimate on the issue hereby triet
20 wis: tle CaTr case, and tended 20 shOy
: contradictory statements and GlsO states
mcDts { ntaDCun5 to admissions thaI nj
evidence in the Carr case was untrue 0
> the trial the State introduced in eVideEc
!, the indictment ard judgment in tie Gar
: cc5e Wherein y was charged that appel
tettsnt committed perjury in this case. I'll
Z court il lis ChSr2e failed and omi:Sed t
= limit and restrict the Jury as TO the ie2iii
nlsta purposes Of this testimony. Til
d was fatal error. Reversed and renamed
9 White, P. J.
Cnsrles Middleton vs.. the S.Gte; 81
? peal gfrom L2Vzca. Where there is Il
bill Ct exceptions ana Inc charge appear
tull and fsir, 20 fundamental error bein
= apparent On the fscs If the record, show
ihg that the defendant hGs been prsju
j diced IN the court beloW, this court wi
MOI disturb the We Dict. Affirmed. VII
u son, J.
VIM Berry vs.. the S5zte; appeal ttoI
!: Colcr2G0. Conviction for burglar
" Where there l5 neither an exception {
any kind nor 3 statement Of facts and IL
: charge of the court aud the in3iCtme1
s ere both coed this court will net intel
= fere. Affirmed. Wilson, j.
q E. n. WIilaon rs. the State; appai
-Ifson Colorado. This IS s conviction f
e I6heft OF threep2ir Of pauts. Appellant
8eQunazI nn2tts g motion IL arrest Of judg
y lIncGG LsSSsiS S>GUEN UAt1 SAAN W.
q sasEsasf1 used Ia the indictment 10 repr
IS sanT property, js q word unknown to Il
English, or any other language. when r
= ferrinG TO thirPs or property. Hsld; Tn
. the word ''pants" is word well know
= and Of daily use to designate corpore
De personal property. No error. Afirns
at Wilson, j.
sz Claude Jackson vs.. the State; appe
=. from Robertson. Conviction for me-!
- slaughter. There is no bill Of exception
.- the chsyge Of the court is not complaint
Of, and the p-oof fully su3:Sius the jud
ment and this court viii notdisturc L
c5 conviction. Affirmed. Wilson, j.
Mt Waah Simmons VS.. e State; sppe
ha from Freastone. This is IN appeal fro
~ & conviction Of assault 70 murder. I
~ court permitted the state 70 prove, CIV
Ga objections Of appellant, the fight OF So
'A0 appellant SO evidence inculpatoEy Of
"a guilt. For this ruling appellant exceE
10 and assigns the ruling as error. Hel
- In admitting this testimony the court
not err, flight being q Circumstance ten
ing 20 show guilt. No reversible eIrt
Affirmed. Wilson, J.
Hannah Sternes vs. the STAT
~